Convert the edited project page into an MP4 video with motion blur and mixed audio, returning a job ID when processing exceeds about 40 seconds.
Render the page to video with motion blur and mix the sound. Returns when done, or a job id if it takes longer than about 40 s.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fps | No | ||
| out | No | File name inside the project | final.mp4 |
| sub | No | Subframes for motion blur; the style sets this, leave it out | |
| project | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false; the description adds genuinely useful behaviour beyond that by disclosing the synchronous/async split and the ~40 s threshold, which determines the return shape. It still omits what happens on failure, whether an existing output file is overwritten, and any cost or resource expectations for a long-running encode.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the return semantics. Every clause carries information an agent needs, and nothing is padded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description does cover the key return-shape ambiguity (video vs job id), which is the most important gap for this tool. However, for a mutating render job with four parameters at half coverage, it leaves out where the artifact lands, what a job id is used for, and what failure looks like.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%: 'out' and 'sub' are documented, while 'project' and 'fps' are bare. The description adds nothing about any parameter, not even the default output file or the fps range, so the undocumented half stays unexplained in both places. 'Motion blur' only loosely gestures at 'sub', which the schema already handles better.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific verb and resource: 'Render the page to video with motion blur and mix the sound.' That distinguishes it from preview, stills and check_video, which are read/inspect counterparts. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops just short of the top mark.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit statement of when to choose render over preview or stills. The async note ('or a job id if it takes longer than about 40 s') implies that render_status should be polled afterwards, but that tool is never named. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.